Why is everyone you disagree with, labeled a Social Justice Warrior?

originally posted by: ketsuko
A textbook example would be the way that people continually try to get offended at the Seminole mascot of FSU on behalf of Native Americans despite
that fact the the Seminole tribe itself works closely with the university to make sure that the mascot's depiction is exactly what they want. In other
words, the tribe being depicted approves of the depiction and the mascot and continually speaks out officially on its behalf, but that doesn't
stop an entirely different group of people from trying to convince them they should feel ashamed of it and shamed by it.

That group is a classic example of a social justice warrior.

Here is another example of what your are explaining.

This SJW is offended because a LYFT driver has a HULA girl on his dashboard!!!!

And in the same vein, stop calling people that dont agree with you "snowflakes". It freaks me out to no end. Long before SJW or "snowflakes" were
being thrown around as insults, a "snowflake" was a person suffering from a rare disease, "snowflake disease", i.e Myasthenia Gravis. Heck, when I
first read about all the snowflakes here on ATS I thought there must be an epidemic. Only later did I discover it was meant as an insult....

originally posted by: ketsuko
A textbook example would be the way that people continually try to get offended at the Seminole mascot of FSU on behalf of Native Americans despite
that fact the the Seminole tribe itself works closely with the university to make sure that the mascot's depiction is exactly what they want. In other
words, the tribe being depicted approves of the depiction and the mascot and continually speaks out officially on its behalf, but that doesn't
stop an entirely different group of people from trying to convince them they should feel ashamed of it and shamed by it.

originally posted by: Hellhound604
And in the same vein, stop calling people that dont agree with you "snowflakes". It freaks me out to no end. Long before SJW or "snowflakes" were
being thrown around as insults, a "snowflake" was a person suffering from a rare disease, "snowflake disease", i.e Myasthenia Gravis. Heck, when I
first read about all the snowflakes here on ATS I thought there must be an epidemic. Only later did I discover it was meant as an
insult....

No offense, but spoken like a true SJW.

And snowflakes are a real personality type now: beautiful unique DELICATE snowflakes. If you touch one the wrong way, when there's hardly a right way,
it shatters.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
If there weren't so many injustices in the country, and world, advocates wouldn't be necessary.

When we are talking about true injustice, sure.

For example, when there are actual laws that say, "Women are not allowed to be educated." Then it is an injustice.

But simply because one is poor is not an injustice. Simply because a workplace is full of workers who are predominantly of one group or another is not
an injustice. Simply because someone utters a word or phrase or does or does not sit at a table is not an injustice. But for social justice warriors,
these things are claimed to be.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
If there weren't so many injustices in the country, and world, advocates wouldn't be necessary.

In reality, our country does not suffer from most of the supposed injustices claimed. Most are excuses absolving personal responsibilities of choices
and decisions made. Life is challenging for everyone, more so for those who make poor choices and decisions. Once I learned to stand up and accept my
spousal abuse and homelessness was due to my own poor choices...justice was served by creating a much better life for myself and my children. It
didn't happen overnight and was a struggle...but it is well worth it to realize that only you are responsible for your own individual cause/effect
situations and not society! Freedom comes with personal responsibility!

Like a large portion of the left, not middle-left, throw out the race card?

pretty much spot on.
at times you can see people goading the other side into saying something that could be perceived justifiable into playing either card, at times people
just troll.
its a little sad when a real life incident occurs, where lives have been lost, and it boils down to two people with caps lock on typing racist or sjw.

That argument is tired. When someone makes a comment like that, it indicates the person is acutely unaware of what the term "social injustice"
really means, particularly when the only reference is to oneself and one's own experiences.

If you've never been in a demographic that has been targeted for injustice, then you are one of the few.

If you can think to our history, outside of yourself, you will recognize the issues we've had in the past where groups were unable to defend
themselves, and others have risen up to provide social and legal guidance. To assist them bringing the situation to light, and solving problems on
their behalf. I call it advocacy, which is actually a much more appropriate term.

Here's some thing that have been corrected in our country, due to advocacy, or if you prefer to demean the efforts, call it "SJW", or whatever you
think bears enough disdain.

It was legal for men to beat their wives and even rape their wives at one time. Why is that now illegal?
It was legal for people to beat and abuse their children, as well as imprison them in their homes.
It was legal for people to abuse and neglect their own animals.
Women couldn't vote.
Wheel chair ramps didn't exist in public buildings.
Public health became available so EVERYBODY could get smallpox vaccines, and other necessary health benefits.
Education.
Taxation.
Segregation.
Gender inequality.
Children with Downs syndrome couldn't go to school.
People with mental illnesses,( don't get me started on how those folks were treated.)
Employment discrimination.

Remember the "New Deal"? Americans were literally dying on the street from malnutrition. Others got tired of seeing them, and their "complaining"
went a long way towards accomplishing bread lines.

I could go on, those are off the top of my head.

Without advocates, some of those, or perhaps many of those injustices might still exist. Of course, they ALL still do, but are illegal now and
"socially unacceptable", so the incidences are fewer.

So it's "personal choice", eh? Does someone "choose" to be mentally ill? Or be born poor with seemingly no way out?
Or be a woman, who no one will hire? Or be pregnant at 12 years old because of familial rape? These people NEED a voice. It's not yours to judge
them.

As far as "our country doesn't have those problems " Our country has ALL those problems. If you refuse to see them, then at least try and not derail
those who are trying to achieve some level of equality and assistance. As long as you are happy and self-congratulatory on your self and your
circumstances, fine. Live life. But don't criticize those of us who do wish to lend a voice to those who need it.

There seems to be some confusion on this matter. Not to say I'm the leading authority on this subject, but I'd like to think I have experienced enough
of this to know when someone actually fits the SJW mold. Garry Johnson was the only one listed in the OP that is a SJW. Everyone else had a legitimate
reason to be upset. Most lesbians are by nature but not all.

Real SJW's belong to a "bandwagon mentality". Where whatever they are protesting or rallying people against will never have any impact on their lives.
Take BLM for example the majority of members are individuals that will never experience police violence. Much like the 3rd wave feminists have never
actually experienced discrimination because of their genitalia. But they are certainly the most vocal and the leading authority on all matters
pertaining to how we should run our own lives.
I'll give a few examples of SJW's.

I'd say real SJW's make up less than 1% of the overall population. Mainly in first world western nations where you can be this ignorant, irrational,
and hypocritical and not get burned alive for it. They are actually needed in some parts of the world just not the civilized parts...

I agree with you that the term "Social Justice Warrior" has taken on a negative connotation. For the longest time I used to perceive the term as a
good label until I began participating on social media forums and saw how the term was being used as an insult. I subscribe to your views that the SJW
term should reflect people who are deeply committed to making a positive change in society like the J.K Rowlands, Mia Farrow's of today or the
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and Helen Keller's of yesterday.

Humanitarians, especially the everyday people who sacrifice their time, freedom and comforts and those who place themselves in harms ways to help
others such as Doctors Without Borders; relief workers in war torn nations; Amnesty International volunteers dealing with the plight of refugees;
advocates against child sex trafficking and forced labour, etc; whose names are not known and probably will never been known, are the true social
justice warriors in this world.

People like you who proudly wear the term like a badge of honour in their avatar message because you deeply care about society beyond social media.

They are actually needed in some parts of the world just not the civilized parts...

And where, pray tell, might that be? : )

Advocacy will always be needed, unless there is a utopia, and people are completely autonomous. As our country evolves, so does our social structure.
Like now. Twenty five years ago, same gender marriage wasn't being considered, and now it's legal because of social uprising.

There will always be something that needs tweaking as we grow and change.

Remember when Rowling "outed" Dumbledore? A lot of people felt that she did so retroactively as fan service. I take a different view. I think there is
evidence in the book dealing with Dumbledore's past to suggest that if he wasn't fully gay, she at least was writing him as someone who had those
leanings which helped lead him to do what he did in his youth. That the detail wasn't revealed in the books explicitly was because it just wasn't
relevant or necessary information.

How many kids really spend much time worrying about the sex lives of their teachers? Think about it ... how much did we actually know about the sex
lives of any of Harry's teachers aside from those where it was a necessary plot point?

However, now they are back for more. They requested that she "out" Sirius Black, Harry's deceased godfather, and she said no.

The SJWs are up in arms on social media about it, even having started a hashtag to bash Rowling for refusing to comply.

I agree with her. There was nothing at all that suggests she wrote the character with any particular orientation in mind, and if she "outs" him now,
it is pure fan service and nothing else. But they're hating on her for not caving in to their demands anyhow.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.